%% This BibTeX bibliography file was created using BibDesk.
%% https://bibdesk.sourceforge.io/

%% Created for Emily Thorson at 2024-02-26 20:01:26 -0500 


%% Saved with string encoding Unicode (UTF-8) 



@article{bisgaard2019getting,
	author = {Bisgaard, Martin},
	date-added = {2024-02-26 18:05:35 -0500},
	date-modified = {2024-02-26 18:05:35 -0500},
	journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
	number = {4},
	pages = {824--839},
	publisher = {Wiley Online Library},
	title = {How getting the facts right can fuel partisan-motivated reasoning},
	volume = {63},
	year = {2019}}

@article{coppock2023conceptual,
	author = {Coppock, Alexander and Gross, Kimberly and Porter, Ethan and Thorson, Emily and Wood, Thomas J},
	date-added = {2024-02-26 18:00:07 -0500},
	date-modified = {2024-02-26 18:00:07 -0500},
	journal = {British Journal of Political Science},
	number = {4},
	pages = {1328--1341},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	title = {Conceptual Replication of Four Key Findings about Factual Corrections and Misinformation during the 2020 US Election: Evidence from Panel-Survey Experiments},
	volume = {53},
	year = {2023}}

@article{aaroe2014,
	abstract = {A robust finding in the welfare state literature is that public support for the welfare state differs widely across countries. Yet recent research on the psychology of welfare support suggests that people everywhere form welfare opinions using psychological predispositions designed to regulate interpersonal help giving using cues regarding recipient effort. We argue that this implies that cross-national differences in welfare support emerge from mutable differences in stereotypes about recipient efforts rather than deep differences in psychological predispositions. Using free-association tasks and experiments embedded in large-scale, nationally representative surveys collected in the United States and Denmark, we test this argument by investigating the stability of opinion differences when faced with the presence and absence of cues about the deservingness of specific welfare recipients. Despite decades of exposure to different cultures and welfare institutions, two sentences of information can make welfare support across the U.S. and Scandinavian samples substantially and statistically indistinguishable.},
	author = {Aar{\o}e, Lene and Petersen, Michael Bang},
	doi = {10.1017/S002238161400019X},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/3CPIAR8L/Aar{\o}e and Petersen - 2014 - Crowding Out Culture Scandinavians and Americans .pdf;/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/BJ5FIJVA/S002238161400019X.html},
	issn = {0022-3816},
	journal = {The Journal of Politics},
	keywords = {Deservingness,Fairness,Support for redistribution},
	month = jul,
	number = {3},
	pages = {684--697},
	shorttitle = {Crowding {{Out Culture}}},
	title = {Crowding {{Out Culture}}: {{Scandinavians}} and {{Americans Agree}} on {{Social Welfare}} in the {{Face}} of {{Deservingness Cues}}},
	urldate = {2019-12-14},
	volume = {76},
	year = {2014},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1017/S002238161400019X}}

@article{alcaniz-colomer2022,
	abstract = {The economic crisis of 2008 severely affected the welfare states. As the economic situation of a country worsens, the resources that the public administration can devote to improve the situation of the people also decrease, endangering the advancement of those in a disadvantaged situation. People who have always lived in poverty, besides having their opportunities reduced, also face negative public views that affect the perceived legitimacy of such public aid, which can in turn be a mechanism for perpetuating their situation. Two studies (N\,=\,252 and N\,=\,266) analyse how a person in persistent poverty is perceived compared to a person in poverty due to the crisis\textemdash a circumstantial poverty. We also study some feasible mechanisms underlying this different perception, as well as their effects on attitudes toward social protection policies. In Study 1, results indicated that people showed more favourable attitudes toward social protection policies when they perceived someone in poverty due to the crisis, compared to the target who had been in poverty all his/her life. Individualistic attributions for poverty mediated this effect: when people think of someone in persistent poverty, they make more individualistic attributions concerning their situation, which leads to worse attitudes toward social protection policies. Identification with the group moderates this relation. Furthermore, Study 2 showed that participants perceive people who are in poverty because of economic crisis as more deserving of help than people who have always been poor. Some theoretical and practical implications for intergroup relations and public policy are discussed.},
	author = {{Alca{\~n}iz-Colomer}, Joaqu{\'\i}n and Moya, Miguel and {Valor-Segura}, Inmaculada},
	doi = {10.1007/s12144-022-03804-6},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/KKIIFV9T/Alca{\~n}iz-Colomer et al. - 2022 - Not all poor are equal the perpetuation of povert.pdf},
	issn = {1936-4733},
	journal = {Current Psychology},
	langid = {english},
	month = oct,
	shorttitle = {Not All Poor Are Equal},
	title = {Not All Poor Are Equal: The Perpetuation of Poverty through Blaming Those Who Have Been Poor All Their Lives},
	urldate = {2023-04-21},
	year = {2022},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03804-6}}

@article{allegretto2013,
	author = {Allegretto, S. A. and M., Doussard and {Graham-Squire}, D. and Jacobs, K. and Thompson, D. and Fast, T.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education},
	title = {Fast Food, Poverty Wages: {{The}} Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the Fast-Food Industry},
	year = {2013}}

@article{ansolabehere2012,
	author = {Ansolabehere, Stephen and Meredith, March and Snowberg, Eric},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Political Analysis},
	number = {1},
	pages = {48--69},
	title = {Asking about Numbers: {{Why}} and How},
	volume = {21},
	year = {2012}}

@article{ballard-rosa2021,
	abstract = {Inequality has increased over recent decades in many advanced industrial democracies, but taxes have rarely become more progressive. One possible explanation for the lack of a policy response is that, despite rising inequality, voters support higher taxes on incomes and wealth weakly, if at all. Using original representative surveys in Austria and Germany, we employ two strategies to elicit (a) voters' preferences over the progressivity of tax policy and (b) whether exposing them to accurate information about inequality affects those preferences. Voters, we find first, express an abstract preference for progressivity but concretely support tax plans only slightly more progressive than the status quo. Second, we find little evidence that, in either Austria or Germany, informing subjects about aggregate inequality or their own place in the income distribution significantly affects support for progressive taxation. While it seems likely that muted preferences for redistribution help explain why countries have not countered rising inequality with more progressive tax policies, low information does little on the whole to explain those preferences.},
	author = {{Ballard-Rosa}, Cameron and Scheve, Kenneth and Rogowski, Ronald and Thor, Nicolaj},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/N3QD72G3/Ballard-Rosa et al. - Inequality, Information, and Income Tax Policy Pre.pdf},
	keywords = {Income inequality,Information effects,Support for redistribution},
	langid = {english},
	pages = {59},
	title = {Inequality, {{Information}}, and {{Income Tax Policy Preferences}} in {{Austria}} and {{Germany}}},
	year = {2021}}

@article{barabas2009,
	author = {Barabas, Jason and Jerit, J.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
	pages = {73--89},
	title = {Estimating the Casaul Effects of Media Coverage on Policy-Specific Knowledge},
	volume = {53},
	year = {2009}}

@article{bartels2005a,
	abstract = {In 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration engineered two enormous tax cuts primarily benefiting very wealthy taxpayers. Most Americans supported these tax cuts. I argue that they did so not because they were indifferent to economic inequality, but because they largely failed to connect inequality and public policy. Three out of every four people polled said that the difference in incomes between rich people and poor people has increased in the past 20 years, and most of them added that that is a bad thing\textemdash but most of those people still supported the regressive 2001 Bush tax cut and the even more regressive repeal of the estate tax. Several manifestly relevant considerations had negligible or seemingly perverse effects on these policy views, including assessments of the wastefulness of government spending and desires for additional spending on a variety of government programs. Support for the Bush tax cuts was strongly shaped by people's attitudes about their own tax burdens, but virtually unaffected by their attitudes about the tax burden of the rich\textemdash even in the case of the estate tax, which only affects the wealthiest one or two percent of taxpayers. Public opinion in this instance was ill informed, insensitive to some of the most important implications of the tax cuts, and largely disconnected from (or misconnected to) a variety of relevant values and material interests.},
	author = {Bartels, Larry M},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/E8MXYL5L/Bartels - Homer Gets a Tax Cut Inequality and Public Policy in the American Mind - 2005.pdf},
	journal = {Perspectives on Politics},
	keywords = {Information effects},
	number = {1},
	pages = {15--31},
	title = {Homer {{Gets}} a {{Tax Cut}}: {{Inequality}} and {{Public Policy}} in the {{American Mind}}},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2005}}

@article{batson2002,
	author = {Batson, C. D. and Chang, J. and Orr, R. and Rowland, J.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin},
	pages = {1656--1666},
	title = {Empathy, Attitudes, and Action: {{Can}} Feeling for a Member of a Stigmatized Group Motivate One to Help the Group?},
	volume = {28},
	year = {2002}}

@article{batson2007,
	author = {Batson, C. and Elklund, J. and Chermok, V. and Hoyt, J. and Ortiz, B.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Journal of Personal and Social Psychology},
	pages = {65--74},
	title = {An Additional Antecedent of Empathic Concern: {{Valuing}} the Welfare of the Person in Need},
	volume = {93},
	year = {2007}}

@article{batson2009,
	author = {Batson, D. and Ahmad, N.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Social Issues and Policy Review},
	number = {1},
	pages = {141--177},
	title = {Using Empathy to Improve Intergroup Attitudes and Relations},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2009}}

@article{becker2011a,
	author = {Becker, A. B. and Scheufele, D. A.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Social Science Quarterly},
	number = {2},
	pages = {324--345},
	title = {New Voters, New Outlook? {{Predispositions}}, Social Networks, and the Changing Politics of Gay Civil Rights},
	volume = {92},
	year = {2011}}

@article{berinsky2010b,
	author = {Berinsky, A. and Huber, G. and Lenz, D.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Princeton Survey Research Center},
	title = {Using {{Mechanical Turk}} as a Subject Recruitment Tool in Experimental Research},
	year = {2010}}

@article{blair2019,
	abstract = {Researchers need to select high-quality research designs and communicate those designs clearly to readers. Both tasks are difficult. We provide a framework for formally ``declaring'' the analytically relevant features of a research design in a demonstrably complete manner, with applications to qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research. The approach to design declaration we describe requires defining a model of the world (M), an inquiry (I), a data strategy (D), and an answer strategy (A). Declaration of these features in code provides sufficient information for researchers and readers to use Monte Carlo techniques to diagnose properties such as power, bias, accuracy of qualitative causal inferences, and other ``diagnosands.'' Ex ante declarations can be used to improve designs and facilitate preregistration, analysis, and reconciliation of intended and actual analyses. Ex post declarations are useful for describing, sharing, reanalyzing, and critiquing existing designs. We provide open-source software, DeclareDesign, to implement the proposed approach.},
	author = {Blair, Graeme and Cooper, Jasper and Coppock, Alexander and Humphreys, Macartan},
	doi = {10.1017/S0003055419000194},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/VPS6SIYF/Blair et al. - 2019 - Declaring and Diagnosing Research Designs.pdf},
	issn = {0003-0554, 1537-5943},
	journal = {American Political Science Review},
	keywords = {Methodology},
	langid = {english},
	month = aug,
	number = {3},
	pages = {838--859},
	title = {Declaring and {{Diagnosing Research Designs}}},
	urldate = {2020-04-28},
	volume = {113},
	year = {2019},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000194}}

@article{blair2019a,
	abstract = {Researchers need to select high-quality research designs and communicate those designs clearly to readers. Both tasks are difficult. We provide a framework for formally ``declaring'' the analytically relevant features of a research design in a demonstrably complete manner, with applications to qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research. The approach to design declaration we describe requires defining a model of the world (M), an inquiry (I), a data strategy (D), and an answer strategy (A). Declaration of these features in code provides sufficient information for researchers and readers to use Monte Carlo techniques to diagnose properties such as power, bias, accuracy of qualitative causal inferences, and other ``diagnosands.'' Ex ante declarations can be used to improve designs and facilitate preregistration, analysis, and reconciliation of intended and actual analyses. Ex post declarations are useful for describing, sharing, reanalyzing, and critiquing existing designs. We provide open-source software, DeclareDesign, to implement the proposed approach.},
	author = {Blair, Graeme and Cooper, Jasper and Coppock, Alexander and Humphreys, Macartan},
	doi = {10.1017/S0003055419000194},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/F6E7RVBF/Blair et al. - 2019 - Declaring and Diagnosing Research Designs.pdf},
	issn = {0003-0554, 1537-5943},
	journal = {American Political Science Review},
	keywords = {Methodology},
	langid = {english},
	month = aug,
	number = {3},
	pages = {838--859},
	title = {Declaring and {{Diagnosing Research Designs}}},
	volume = {113},
	year = {2019},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000194}}

@article{breznau2019,
	abstract = {We revisit a longstanding hypothesis that the public become more supportive of redistributive policy as income inequality rises. Previous tests of this hypothesis using various forms of general least squares regressions are inconclusive. We suggest improvements and alternatives to these tests. Using the World Inequality Data and International Social Survey Program we analyze 91 surveys in 18 countries. We incorporate three alternative measures of income inequality, including a measure of liberalization as a known cause of income inequality increases. We also employ two alternative test formats that arguably reflect the data generating model better than a least squares regression. The first is vector-autoregression aiming to account for path dependency of public opinion and income inequality, and the endogeneity between them. Next is qualitative comparative analysis to capture sets of conditions that collectively should have led to inequality having an impact on public opinion. Finally, we run our regression models separately for low and high socio-economic strata. In all tests we find no measurable impact of income inequality on support for redistribution. From a macro-perspective we argue that this suggests ruling out a general effect that exists across space and time, and focusing instead on theory to explain why there should not be a general effect. Some arguments suggest the public are normatively opposed to what sounds like `handouts'. We therefore discuss model specification via theory, but also Type II errors, statistical power and the limitations of our conclusions.},
	author = {Breznau, Nate and Hommerich, Carola},
	doi = {10.1016/J.SSRESEARCH.2019.03.013},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/D9MTD88W/Breznau, Hommerich - No generalizable effect of income inequality on public support for governmental redistribution among rich democra.pdf},
	issn = {0049-089X},
	journal = {Social Science Research},
	keywords = {Favorites,Income inequality,Inequality - attitudes,Support for redistribution},
	month = mar,
	pages = {170--191},
	title = {No Generalizable Effect of Income Inequality on Public Support for Governmental Redistribution among Rich Democracies 1987\textendash 2010},
	volume = {81},
	year = {2019},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SSRESEARCH.2019.03.013}}

@article{bridgman2021,
	abstract = {The COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented pressure on governments to engage in widespread cash transfers directly to citizens to help mitigate economic losses. Major and near-universal redistribution efforts have been deployed, but there is remarkably little understanding of where the mass public believes financial support is warranted. Using experimental evidence, we evaluate whether considerations related to deservingness, similarity, and prejudicial attitudes structure support for these transfers. A preregistered experiment found broad, generous, and nondiscriminatory support for direct cash transfers related to COVID-19 in Canada. The second study, accepted as a preregistered report, further probes these dynamics by comparing COVID-19-related outlays with nonemergency ones. We find that COVID-19-related spending was more universal as compared to a more generic cash allocation program. Given that the results were driven by the income of hypothetical recipients, we find broad support for disaster relief that is not means-tested or otherwise constrained by pre-disaster income.},
	author = {Bridgman, Aengus and Merkley, Eric and Loewen, Peter John and Owen, Taylor and Ruths, Derek},
	doi = {10.1017/XPS.2021.10},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/L55WNAHS/Bridgman et al. - 2021 - All in This Together A Preregistered Report on De.pdf;/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/DLW75UAC/CA90FB810E4B2E401395F4BEA0987087.html},
	ids = {loewen2020},
	issn = {2052-2630, 2052-2649},
	journal = {Journal of Experimental Political Science},
	keywords = {Deservingness,Support for redistribution},
	langid = {english},
	month = mar,
	pages = {1--18},
	publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
	shorttitle = {All in {{This Together}}?},
	title = {All in {{This Together}}? {{A Preregistered Report}} on {{Deservingness}} of {{Government Aid During}} the {{COVID-19 Pandemic}}},
	urldate = {2022-04-15},
	year = {2021},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2021.10}}

@article{brosius1994,
	author = {Brosius, H. B. and Bathelt, A.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Communication Research},
	number = {1},
	pages = {48--78},
	title = {The Utility of Exemplars in Persuasive Communications},
	volume = {21},
	year = {1994}}

@electronic{bureauoflaborstatistics2021,
	author = {{Bureau of Labor Statistics}},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	organization = {{US Department of Labor}},
	title = {Occupational Employment Statistics},
	urldate = {2014-01-01},
	year = {2021}}

@unpublished{burlacu2014,
	author = {Burlacu, Diana},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	title = {Attitudinal Consistency in Support for the Welfare State},
	year = {2014}}

@article{cansunar2021,
	abstract = {Why are high-income and low-income earners not significantly polarized in their support for progressive income taxation? This article posits that the affluent fail to recognize that they belong to the high-income income group and this misperception affects their preferences over progressive taxation. To explain this mechanism theoretically, I introduce a formal model of subjective income group-identification through self-comparison to an endogenous reference group. In making decisions about optimal tax rates, individuals then use these subjective evaluations of their own income group and earnings of other groups. Relying on ISSP data, I find strong evidence for the model's empirical implications: most high-income earners support progressive taxation when they identify themselves with a lower group. Additionally, individuals who overestimate the earnings of the rich are more likely to support progressive taxation.},
	author = {Cansunar, Asli},
	doi = {10.1086/711627},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/CWAH2AT3/Cansunar - 2020 - Who is High-Income, Anyway Social Comparison, Su.pdf;/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/KC3HDLKA/711627.html},
	issn = {0022-3816},
	journal = {The Journal of Politics},
	keywords = {Information effects,Support for redistribution},
	month = oct,
	number = {4},
	publisher = {{The University of Chicago Press}},
	shorttitle = {Who Is {{High-Income}}, {{Anyway}}?},
	title = {Who Is {{High-Income}}, {{Anyway}}?: {{Social Comparison}}, {{Subjective Group-Identification}}, and {{Preferences}} over {{Progressive Taxation}}},
	urldate = {2020-09-30},
	volume = {83},
	year = {2021},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1086/711627}}

@article{cavaille2015,
	author = {Cavaille, Charlotte and Trump, Kris-Stella},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/MMFQPJD3/Cavaille and Trump - 2015 - The Two Facets of Social Policy Preferences.pdf},
	journal = {The Journal of Politics},
	keywords = {Income inequality,Support for redistribution,Welfare state},
	number = {1},
	pages = {146--160},
	title = {The {{Two Facets}} of {{Social Policy Preferences}}},
	volume = {77},
	year = {2015}}

@techreport{ciani2021,
	abstract = {A growing body of literature studies the effect of providing information about inequality to respondents of surveys on their preferences for redistribution. We provide a meta-analysis combining the results from 84 information treatments coming from 36 studies in Economics, Political Science, Psychology and Sociology. This meta-analysis complements and informs a broader project on perceptions of inequality and preferences for redistribution (OECD, 2021[1]). In the meta-analysis, we focus on in-survey experiments where a randomly selected group of respondents receive either information about the overall extent of inequalities, or about their position in the income distribution. The results show that providing information on inequality has a sizeable impact on people's perceptions and concerns about inequality, but a rather small effect on their demand for redistribution. Inspecting the heterogeneity across treatments and outcomes helps explaining the small average effect on demand for redistribution, but the evidence is not yet conclusive about the potential explanations. We further show that correcting respondents' misperceptions about their own position in the income distribution increases the preferences for redistribution for those who previously overestimated their position and decreases it for those who underestimated, although the effects are, on average, small.},
	author = {Ciani, Emanuele and Freget, Louis and Manfredi, Thomas},
	doi = {10.1787/8876ec48-en},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/JY89G5FU/2021 - Learning about inequality and demand for redistrib.pdf},
	ids = {ciani2020},
	langid = {english},
	month = nov,
	number = {02},
	series = {{{OECD Papers}} on {{Well-being}} and {{Inequalities}}},
	shorttitle = {Learning about Inequality and Demand for Redistribution},
	title = {Learning about Inequality and Demand for Redistribution: {{A}} Meta-Analysis of in-Survey Informational Experiments},
	urldate = {2022-04-12},
	volume = {02},
	year = {2021},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1787/8876ec48-en}}

@book{condon2020a,
	abstract = {Economic inequality is at a record high in the United States, but public demand for redistribution is not rising with it. Meghan Condon and Amber Wichowsky show that this paradox and other mysteries about class and US politics can be solved through a focus on social comparison. Powerful currents compete to propel attention up or down\textemdash toward the rich or the poor\textemdash pulling politics along in the wake.  Through an astute blend of experiments, surveys, and descriptions people offer in their own words, The Economic Other reveals that when less-advantaged Americans compare with the rich, they become more accurate about their own status and want more from government. But American society is structured to prevent upward comparison. In an increasingly divided, anxious nation, opportunities to interact with the country's richest are shrinking, and people prefer to compare to those below to feel secure. Even when comparison with the rich does occur, many lose confidence in their power to effect change.   Laying bare how social comparisons drive political attitudes, The Economic Other is an essential look at the stubborn plight of inequality and the measures needed to solve it.},
	author = {Condon, Meghan and Wichowsky, Amber},
	googlebooks = {vbjtDwAAQBAJ},
	isbn = {978-0-226-69190-9},
	langid = {english},
	month = aug,
	publisher = {{University of Chicago Press}},
	shorttitle = {The {{Economic Other}}},
	title = {The {{Economic Other}}: {{Inequality}} in the {{American Political Imagination}}},
	year = {2020}}

@book{cook1992,
	author = {Cook, F. and Barrett, E. J.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	publisher = {{Columbia University Press}},
	title = {Support for the {{American}} Welfare State: {{The}} Views of {{Congress}} and the Public},
	year = {1992}}

@misc{cooper2012,
	author = {Cooper, Matthew},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	howpublished = {http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/poll-shows-ambivalence-on-fiscal-cliff-support-for-rice-20121203},
	month = dec,
	title = {Poll Shows Ambivalence on Fiscal Cliff, Support for {{Rice}}},
	year = {2012}}

@article{cruces2012,
	author = {Cruces, G. and Tetaz, Martin and Truglia, R.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Journal of Public Economics},
	pages = {100--112},
	title = {Biased Perceptions of Income Distribution and Preferences of Redistribution: {{Evidence}} from a Survey Experiment},
	volume = {98},
	year = {2012}}

@article{cullen2021,
	abstract = {The vast majority of the pay inequality in organizations comes from differences in pay between employees and their bosses. But are employees aware of these pay disparities? Are employees demotivated by this inequality? To address these questions, we conducted a natural field experiment with a sample of 2,060 employees from a multibillion-dollar corporation in Southeast Asia. We document large misperceptions among employees about the salaries of their managers and smaller but still significant misperceptions of the salaries of their peers, and we show that these perceptions have a significant causal effect on the employees' own behavior.},
	author = {Cullen, Zo{\"e} and {Perez-Truglia}, Ricardo},
	doi = {10.1086/717891},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/NICYLDQN/Cullen and Perez-Truglia - 2021 - How Much Does Your Boss Make The Effects of Salar.pdf},
	issn = {0022-3808},
	journal = {Journal of Political Economy},
	month = oct,
	pages = {000--000},
	publisher = {{The University of Chicago Press}},
	shorttitle = {How {{Much Does Your Boss Make}}?},
	title = {How {{Much Does Your Boss Make}}? {{The Effects}} of {{Salary Comparisons}}},
	urldate = {2022-01-25},
	year = {2021},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1086/717891}}

@article{davis1980,
	author = {Davis, M.H.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology},
	number = {85},
	title = {A Multidimensional Approach to Individual Differences in Empathy},
	volume = {10},
	year = {1980}}

@article{dimcock2013,
	author = {{Dimcock} and Michael, Doherty, Carroll and Kiley, Jocelyn},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Pew Research Center},
	title = {Growing Support for Gay Marriage: {{Changed}} Minds and Changing Demographics},
	year = {2013}}

@article{doyle1992,
	author = {Doyle, K. O.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {American Behavioral Scientist},
	number = {6},
	pages = {708--724},
	title = {Toward a Psychology of Money},
	volume = {35},
	year = {1992}}

@article{druckman2012,
	abstract = {Research on political communication effects has enjoyed great progress over the past 25 years. A key ingredient under- lying these advances is the increased usage of experiments that demonstrate how communications influence opinions and behaviors. Virtually all of these studies pay scant attention to events that occur prior to the experiment\textemdash that is, in ``pretreatment events.'' In this article, we explore how and when the pretreatment environment affects experimen- tal outcomes. We present two studies\textemdash one where we control the pretreatment environment and one where it naturally occurred\textemdash to show how pretreatment effects can influence experimental outcomes. We argue that, under certain condi- tions, attending to pretreatment dynamics leads to novel insights, including a more accurate portrait of the pliability of the mass public and the identification of potentially two groups of citizens\textemdash what we call malleability reactive and dogmatic.},
	author = {Druckman, James N. and Leeper, Thomas J.},
	doi = {10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00582.x},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/JW9MRQW8/Druckman, Leeper - Learning More from Political Communication Experiments Pretreatment and Its Effects - 2012.pdf},
	issn = {00925853},
	journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
	keywords = {Methodology},
	month = feb,
	number = {4},
	pages = {875--896},
	title = {Learning {{More}} from {{Political Communication Experiments}}: {{Pretreatment}} and {{Its Effects}}},
	urldate = {2012-06-20},
	volume = {56},
	year = {2012},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00582.x}}

@article{dyck2008,
	author = {Dyck, J. and Hussey, L.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
	number = {4},
	pages = {589--618},
	title = {The End of Welfare as We Know It?},
	volume = {72},
	year = {2008}}

@article{epp2021,
	abstract = {Abstract. The political preferences of those with high and low incomes are highly correlated, and both groups become less supportive of redistributive spending},
	author = {Epp, Derek A. and Jennings, Jay T.},
	doi = {10.1093/poq/nfaa043},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/MW2E8BH4/Epp and Jennings - 2021 - Inequality, Media Frames, and Public Support for W.pdf;/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/QFIZ5CJ4/nfaa043_supplementary_data.pdf},
	journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
	keywords = {Income inequality,Media,Support for redistribution},
	langid = {english},
	title = {Inequality, {{Media Frames}}, and {{Public Support}} for {{Welfare}}},
	urldate = {2021-02-08},
	year = {2021},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaa043}}

@article{epp2021a,
	abstract = {Abstract. The political preferences of those with high and low incomes are highly correlated, and both groups become less supportive of redistributive spending},
	author = {Epp, Derek A. and Jennings, Jay T.},
	doi = {10.1093/poq/nfaa043},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/2AG4AKYB/nfaa043_supplementary_data.pdf;/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/QNGWDKLT/Epp and Jennings - 2021 - Inequality, Media Frames, and Public Support for W.pdf},
	journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
	keywords = {Income inequality,Media,Support for redistribution},
	langid = {english},
	title = {Inequality, {{Media Frames}}, and {{Public Support}} for {{Welfare}}},
	year = {2021},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaa043}}

@article{eriksson2012,
	abstract = {A recent survey of inequality (Norton and Ariely, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 9\textendash 12) asked respondents to indicate what percent of the nation's total wealth is\textemdash and should be\textemdash controlled by richer and poorer quintiles of the U.S. population. We show that such measures lead to powerful anchoring effects that account for the otherwise remarkable findings that respondents reported perceiving, and desiring, extremely low inequality in wealth. We show that the same anchoring effects occur in other domains, namely web page popularity and school teacher salaries. We introduce logically equivalent questions about average levels of inequality that lead to more accurate responses. Finally, when we made respondents aware of the logical connection between the two measures, the majority said that typical responses to the average measures, indicating higher levels of inequality, better reflected their actual perceptions and preferences than did typical responses to percent measures.},
	author = {Eriksson, Kimmo and Simpson, Brent},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/4KYM4FY2/Eriksson, Simpson - What do Americans know about inequality It depends on how you ask them - 2012(2).pdf;/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/SSLG45IP/Eriksson, Simpson - What do Americans know about inequality It depends on how you ask them - 2012.pdf},
	issn = {19302975},
	journal = {Judgment and Decision Making},
	keywords = {Income inequality,Inequality - perceptions,Methodology,Support for redistribution},
	number = {6},
	pages = {741--745},
	title = {What Do {{Americans}} Know about Inequality? {{It}} Depends on How You Ask Them},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2012}}

@article{fang2020a,
	abstract = {Concerns about the deservingness of policy beneficiaries appear to explain skepticism about redistributive social assistance programs. Many social insurance programs, despite requiring beneficiaries to pay in ahead of time, require discretionary evaluations of the merits of claims for benefits. Do perceptions of deservingness also affect attitudes toward these discretionary social insurance programs? Examining the politics of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), a program whose size and beneficiaries have been increasingly politicized, we investigate these questions by analyzing novel survey data and two experiments conducted on national surveys. We show that people use information about a beneficiary?s eligibility-determining impairment?but not their race, which prior work argues is a key heuristic?to infer their deservingness. Moreover, support for SSDI is responsive to policy arguments emphasizing the program?s social insurance features and potential abuse. Our findings demonstrate important psychological processes relevant to the contemporary politicization of social insurance programs involving discretionary eligibility rules.},
	author = {Fang, Albert H. and Huber, Gregory A.},
	doi = {10.1177/1532673X19863439},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/FJC6D3CG/Fang and Huber - 2020 - Perceptions of Deservingness and the Politicizatio.pdf},
	issn = {1532-673X},
	journal = {American Politics Research},
	langid = {english},
	month = sep,
	number = {5},
	pages = {543--559},
	publisher = {{SAGE Publications Inc}},
	shorttitle = {Perceptions of {{Deservingness}} and the {{Politicization}} of {{Social Insurance}}},
	title = {Perceptions of {{Deservingness}} and the {{Politicization}} of {{Social Insurance}}: {{Evidence From Disability Insurance}} in the {{United States}}},
	urldate = {2023-03-08},
	volume = {48},
	year = {2020},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X19863439}}

@unpublished{feldman2014,
	author = {Feldman, Stanley and Huddy, Leonie and Wronski, Julie and Lown, Patrick},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	title = {Empathy and Support for the Welfare State: {{Ideological}} Consonance and Dissonance},
	year = {2014}}

@article{flores2014,
	author = {Flores, Andrew R.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {International Journal of Public Opinion Research},
	title = {Reexamining Context and Same-Sex Marriage: {{The}} Effect of Demography on Public Support for Same-Sex Relationship Recognition},
	year = {2014}}

@misc{gallup2013,
	author = {{Gallup}},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	howpublished = {http://www.gallup.com/poll/162347/americans-give-guns-immigration-reform-low-priority.aspx},
	month = may,
	title = {Americans Give Guns, Immigration Reform Low Priority},
	year = {2013}}

@article{gilens1995,
	author = {Gilens, Martin},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {The Journal of Politics},
	number = {4},
	pages = {994--1014},
	title = {Racial Attitudes and Opposition to Welfare},
	volume = {57},
	year = {1995}}

@book{gilens1999a,
	author = {Gilens, Martin},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	publisher = {{The University of Chicago Press}},
	title = {Why {{Americans}} Hate Welfare: {{Race}}, Media and the Politics of Anti-Poverty Policy},
	year = {1999}}

@article{gimpelson2018,
	abstract = {A vast literature suggests that economic inequality has important consequences for politics and public policy. Higher inequality is thought to increase demand for income redistribution in democracies and to discourage democratization and promote class conflict and revolution in dictatorships. Most such arguments crucially assume that ordinary people know how high inequality is, how it has been changing, and where they fit in the income distribution. Using a variety of large, cross-national surveys, we show that, in recent years, ordinary people have had little idea about such things. What they think they know is often wrong. Widespread ignorance and misperceptions emerge robustly, regardless of data source, operationalization, and measurement method. Moreover, perceived inequality\textemdash not the actual level\textemdash correlates strongly with demand for redistribution and reported conflict between rich and poor. We suggest that most theories about political effects of inequality need to be reframed as theories about effects of perceived inequality.},
	author = {Gimpelson, Vladimir and Treisman, Daniel},
	copyright = {\textcopyright{} 2017 John Wiley \& Sons Ltd},
	doi = {10.1111/ecpo.12103},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/LYZU7XSC/Gimpelson and Treisman - 2018 - Misperceiving inequality.pdf},
	issn = {1468-0343},
	journal = {Economics \& Politics},
	keywords = {Income inequality,Inequality - perceptions,Information effects,Support for redistribution},
	langid = {english},
	number = {1},
	pages = {27--54},
	title = {Misperceiving Inequality},
	urldate = {2019-08-15},
	volume = {30},
	year = {2018},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1111/ecpo.12103}}

@article{goren2003,
	author = {Goren, P.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Political Behavior},
	number = {3},
	pages = {201--220},
	title = {Race, Sophistication, and White Opinion on Government Spending.},
	volume = {25},
	year = {2003}}

@article{goren2009,
	author = {Goren, P. and Federico, C. and Kittilson, M.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
	number = {4},
	pages = {805--820},
	title = {Source Cues, Partisan Identities, and Political Value Expression},
	volume = {53},
	year = {2009}}

@electronic{governmentaccountabilityoffice2020,
	author = {'Government Accountability Office'},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/3AIQTPT7/gao-21-45.pdf;/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/V6PLRSTK/gao-21-45.html},
	langid = {english},
	organization = {{US Government Accountability Office}},
	shorttitle = {Federal {{Social Safety Net Programs}}},
	title = {Federal {{Social Safety Net Programs}}: {{Millions}} of {{Full-Time Workers Rely}} on {{Federal Health Care}} and {{Food Assistance Programs}}},
	urldate = {2022-02-04},
	year = {2020}}

@article{greenhouse2013,
	author = {Greenhouse, Steven},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {The New York Times},
	month = dec,
	title = {\$15 Wage in Fast Food Stirs Debate on Effects},
	year = {2013}}

@article{harth2008,
	author = {Harth, Nicole and Syringa, Kessler and Thomas, Colin and Wayne, Leach},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin},
	month = jan,
	number = {1},
	pages = {115--129},
	title = {Advantaged Group's Emotional Reactions to Intergroup Inequality: {{The}} Dynamics of Pride, Guilt, and Sympathy.},
	volume = {34},
	year = {2008}}

@article{heiserman2021,
	abstract = {How should we measure people's perceptions of\textemdash and attitudes about\textemdash economic~inequality? A recent literature seeks to quantify the level of inequality that people, especially Americans, perceive and prefer in society. These findings have garnered much attention from both social scientists and the public. But many of the methods used in this literature are either known to have methodological issues or have not been thoroughly compared against other methods. Thus it is not clear which, if any, are valid and reliable measures of perceived, or preferred, inequality. To assess these measures, we conducted a large web-based study (N\,=\,831) to compare key methods for measuring perceived inequality and their related justice attitudes. In addition to comparing the resultant summary statistics, we assess how well the different measures correlate with each other and with Likert scale measures of perceived inequality. Our analysis reveals a range of issues with these measures, including failure to provide logical responses, large method effects on point estimates of inequality, and low correlations between methods and with criteria measures. We conclude our analysis with three recommendations for researchers aiming to measure inequality perceptions and preferences.},
	author = {Heiserman, Nicholas and Simpson, Brent},
	doi = {10.1007/s11211-021-00368-x},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/WE26JUXB/Heiserman and Simpson - 2021 - Measuring Perceptions of Economic Inequality and J.pdf},
	issn = {1573-6725},
	journal = {Social Justice Research},
	keywords = {Favorites,Inequality - perceptions,Methodology},
	langid = {english},
	month = may,
	pages = {119--145},
	shorttitle = {Measuring {{Perceptions}} of {{Economic Inequality}} and {{Justice}}},
	title = {Measuring {{Perceptions}} of {{Economic Inequality}} and {{Justice}}: {{An Empirical Assessment}}},
	urldate = {2021-05-27},
	volume = {34},
	year = {2021},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-021-00368-x}}

@misc{horowitz2020,
	abstract = {About six-in-ten U.S. adults say there's too much economic inequality in the country these days, and among that group, most say addressing it requires significant changes to the country's economic system, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.},
	author = {Horowitz, Juliana Menasce and Igielnik, Ruth and Kochhar, Rakesh},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/PHH3DADE/most-americans-say-there-is-too-much-economic-inequality-in-the-u-s-but-fewer-than-half-call-it.html},
	journal = {Pew Research Center's Social \& Demographic Trends Project},
	langid = {american},
	month = jan,
	title = {Most {{Americans Say There Is Too Much Economic Inequality}} in the {{U}}.{{S}}., but {{Fewer Than Half Call It}} a {{Top Priority}}},
	urldate = {2022-06-02},
	year = {2020}}

@techreport{hoy2019a,
	author = {Hoy, Christopher and Mager, Franziska},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/IB4IDB92/Hoy and Mager - 2019 - Why are relatively poor people not more supportive.pdf},
	keywords = {Income inequality,Inequality - attitudes,Support for redistribution},
	langid = {english},
	number = {2019-489},
	title = {Why Are Relatively Poor People Not More Supportive of Redistribution? {{Evidence}} from a Randomized Survey Experiment across 10 Countries},
	year = {2019}}

@article{ingraham2014,
	author = {Ingraham, Christopher},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {The Washington Post},
	month = aug,
	title = {Three Quarters of Whites Don't Have Any Non-White Friends},
	year = {2014}}

@article{jacowitz1995,
	author = {Jacowitz, Karen and Kahneman, {\relax Daniel}.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin},
	pages = {1161--1166},
	title = {Measures of Anchoring in Estimation Tasks},
	volume = {21},
	year = {1995}}

@article{johnston2016,
	abstract = {While classic theories suggest that aggregate inequality implies support for social welfare, recent research suggests the opposite: high inequality periods of U.S. history are associated with more limited government preferences than low inequality periods. We reconsider this conclusion. First, we assess the methods of recent research, and find that the claims made are not robust to important corrections. We then introduce a new methodological approach, leveraging spatial variation in local inequality, and examining average differences in preferences across geographic context. In both our reconsideration of the recent literature, and our methodological extensions, we find little evidence for a relationship of inequality to mass preferences. We conclude that objective variation in inequality plays but a small direct role in structuring the social welfare preferences of citizens.},
	author = {Johnston, Christopher D. and Newman, Benjamin J.},
	doi = {10.1177/1532673X15588361},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/JBDHKVDD/Johnston, Newman - Economic Inequality and U.S. Public Policy Mood Across Space and Time - 2016.pdf},
	issn = {15523373},
	journal = {American Politics Research},
	keywords = {Economic inequality,Inequality - attitudes,Support for redistribution},
	number = {1},
	pages = {164--191},
	title = {Economic {{Inequality}} and {{U}}.{{S}}. {{Public Policy Mood Across Space}} and {{Time}}},
	volume = {44},
	year = {2016},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X15588361}}

@book{kahneman2011,
	author = {Kahneman, D.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	publisher = {{Macmillan}},
	title = {Thinking Fast and Slow},
	year = {2011}}

@article{kam2008,
	author = {Kam, C. and Nam, Y.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Political Behavior},
	number = {2},
	pages = {223--258},
	title = {Reaching out or Pulling Back: {{Macroeconomic}} Conditions and Public Support for Social Welfare Spending},
	volume = {30},
	year = {2008}}

@article{karadja2017,
	abstract = {We study the extent to which people are misinformed about their relative position in the income distribution and the effects on preferences for redistribution of correcting faulty beliefs. We implement a tailor-made survey in Sweden and document that a vast majority of Swedes believe that they are poorer, relative to others, than they actually are. This is true across groups, but younger, poorer, less cognitively able and less educated individuals have perceptions that are further from reality. Using a second survey, we conduct an experiment by randomly informing a subsample about their true relative income position. Respondents who learn that they are richer than they thought demand less redistribution and increase their support for the Conservative party. This result is entirely driven by prior right-of-center political preferences and not by altruism or moral values about redistribution. Moreover, the effect can be reconciled by people with political preferences to the right-of-center being more likely to view taxes as distortive and to believe that it is personal effort rather than luck that is most influential for individual economic success},
	author = {Karadja, Mounir and M{\"o}llerstr{\"o}m, Johanna and Seim, David},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/VBRTPESY/Karadja et al. - 2017 - Richer (and Holier) Than Thou The Effect of Relat.pdf},
	journal = {The Review of Economics and Statistics},
	keywords = {Inequality - consequences,Information effects,Support for redistribution},
	number = {2},
	pages = {201--212},
	title = {Richer (and {{Holier}}) {{Than Thou}}? {{The Effect}} of {{Relative Income Improvements}} on {{Demand}} for {{Redistribution}}},
	volume = {99},
	year = {2017}}

@book{katz1989,
	address = {{New York}},
	author = {Katz, Michael},
	keywords = {Income inequality,Inequality - attitudes},
	publisher = {{Pantheon Books}},
	title = {The {{Undeserving Poor}}: {{From}} the {{War}} on {{Poverty}} to the {{War}} on {{Welfare}}},
	year = {1989}}

@techreport{keeter2012,
	author = {Keeter, Scott and Christian, L.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	institution = {{Pew Research Center for the People and the Press}},
	month = nov,
	title = {A Comparison of Results from Surveys by the {{Pew Research Center}} and {{Google Consumer Surveys}}.},
	year = {2012}}

@article{kellstedt2000,
	author = {Kellstedt, P. M.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
	pages = {245--260},
	title = {Media Framing and the Dynamics of Racial Policy Preferences},
	year = {2000}}

@article{kelly2010,
	abstract = {This article assesses the influence of income inequality on the public's policy mood. Recent work has produced divergent perspectives on the relationship between inequality, public opinion, and government redistribution. One group of scholars suggests that unequal representation of different income groups reproduces inequality as politicians respond to the preferences of the rich. Another group of scholars pays relatively little attention to distributional outcomes but shows that government is generally just as responsive to the poor as to the rich. Utilizing theoretical insights from comparative political economy and time-series data from 1952 to 2006, supplemented with cross-sectional analysis where appropriate, we show that economic inequality is, in fact, self-reinforcing, but that this is fully consistent with the idea that government tends to respond equally to rich and poor in its policy enactments.},
	author = {Kelly, Nathan J. and Enns, Peter K.},
	doi = {10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00472.x},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/KE3JSZ25/Kelly, Enns - Inequality and the Dynamics of Public Opinion The Self-Reinforcing Link Between Economic Inequality and Mass Preferences -.pdf},
	issn = {00925853},
	journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
	keywords = {Income inequality,Inequality - attitudes,Inequality - consequences,Support for redistribution},
	langid = {english},
	month = jul,
	number = {4},
	pages = {855--870},
	title = {Inequality and the {{Dynamics}} of {{Public Opinion}}: {{The Self-Reinforcing Link Between Economic Inequality}} and {{Mass Preferences}}},
	urldate = {2010-07-27},
	volume = {54},
	year = {2010},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00472.x}}

@article{kenworthy2008,
	abstract = {According to the `median-voter' hypothesis, greater inequality in the market distribution of earnings or income tends to produce greater generosity in redistri- butive policy.We outline the steps in the causal chain specified by the hypothesis and attempt to assess these steps empirically. Prior studies focusing on cross- country variation have found little support for the median-voter model. We examine over-time trends in eight nations during the 1980s and 1990s. Here too the median-voter hypothesis appears to have little utility.},
	author = {Kenworthy, L. and McCall, L.},
	doi = {10.1093/ser/mwm006},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/5JL6LZYD/Kenworthy, McCall - Inequality, public opinion and redistribution - 2008.pdf},
	issn = {1475-1461},
	journal = {Socio-Economic Review},
	keywords = {Economic inequality,Income inequality,Political behavior,Support for redistribution,Welfare state},
	month = dec,
	number = {1},
	pages = {35--68},
	title = {Inequality, Public Opinion and Redistribution},
	urldate = {2011-06-08},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2008},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwm006}}

@article{kim2020,
	abstract = {Why does rising income inequality not result in further demand for redistribution? Explanations typically focus on public misperceptions about the extent of income inequality. We propose an alternative argument suggesting that many Americans misunderstand what inequality means in the first place. We find that Americans have a poor understanding of variance in income relative to absolute levels of income. Using a population-based survey experiment, our results suggest that most people are unable to differentiate policies that address poverty from those that reduce inequality. Even those most concerned about inequality generally favor raising everyone's incomes rather than decreasing inequality. If they favor redistributive policies at all, they are in favor of raising the incomes of the poor. In the minds of most Americans, poverty, not inequality understood in the sense of variance in income, is the central problem.},
	author = {Kim, Eunji and Pedersen, Rasmus T and Mutz, Diana C},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/MVX4XFAS/Kim et al. - Misunderstanding Income Inequality and Its Policy .pdf},
	langid = {english},
	pages = {17},
	title = {Misunderstanding {{Income Inequality}} and {{Its Policy Consequences}}},
	year = {2020}}

@article{konrath2018a,
	abstract = {Empathy involves feeling compassion for others and imagining how they feel. In this article, we develop and validate the Single Item Trait Empathy Scale (SITES), which contains only one item that takes seconds to complete. In seven studies (N = 5724), the SITES was found to be both reliable and valid. It correlated in expected ways with a wide variety of intrapersonal outcomes. For example, it is negatively correlated with narcissism, depression, anxiety, and alexithymia. In contrast, it is positively correlated with other measures of empathy, self-esteem, subjective well-being, and agreeableness. The SITES also correlates with a wide variety of interpersonal outcomes, especially compassion for others and helping others. The SITES is recommended in situations when time or question quantity is constrained.},
	author = {Konrath, Sara and Meier, Brian P. and Bushman, Brad J.},
	doi = {10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.009},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/VU5LKHL3/Konrath et al. - 2018 - Development and validation of the single item trai.pdf;/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/NNJ3R7X4/S0092656617301137.html;/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/ZFZLDTRW/S0092656617301137.html},
	ids = {konrath2018},
	issn = {0092-6566},
	journal = {Journal of Research in Personality},
	keywords = {Emotions},
	langid = {english},
	month = apr,
	pages = {111--122},
	title = {Development and Validation of the Single Item Trait Empathy Scale ({{SITES}})},
	volume = {73},
	year = {2018},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.009}}

@article{kuklinski2000,
	author = {Kuklinski, J. and Jerit, J. and Quirk, P. and Rich, R. and Schwieder, D.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {The Journal of Politics},
	number = {3},
	pages = {790--816},
	title = {Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship.},
	volume = {62},
	year = {2000}}

@article{kuziemko2015,
	abstract = {This paper analyzes the effects of information about inequality and taxes on preferences for redistribution using randomized online surveys on Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk). About 5,000 respondents were randomized into treatments providing interactive information on U.S. income inequality, the link between top income tax rates and economic growth, and the estate tax. We find that the informational treatment has very large effects on whether respondents view inequality as an important problem. By contrast, we find quantitatively small effects of the treatment on views about policy and redistribution: support for taxing the rich increases slightly, support for transfers to the poor does not, especially among those with lower incomes and education. An exception is the estate tax \textemdash{} we find that informing respondents that it affects only the very richest families has an extremely large positive effect on estate tax support, even increasing respondents' willingness to write to their U.S. senator about the issue. We also find that the treatment substantially decreases trust in government, potentially mitigating respondents' willingness to translate concerns about inequality into government action. Methodologically, we explore different strategies to lower attrition in online survey platforms and show our main results are robust across methods. A small follow-up survey one month later reveals that our results persist over time. Finally, we compare mTurk with other survey vendors and provide suggestions to future researchers considering this platform.},
	author = {Kuziemko, Ilyana and Norton, Michael I. and Saez, Emmanuel and Stantcheva, Stefanie},
	doi = {10.1257/aer.20130360},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/7WLD8CHD/Kuziemko et al. - How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments - 2015.pdf},
	issn = {00028282},
	journal = {American Economic Review},
	keywords = {Income inequality,Support for redistribution},
	number = {4},
	pages = {1478--1508},
	title = {How {{Elastic Are Preferences}} for {{Redistribution}}? {{Evidence}} from {{Randomized Survey Experiments}}},
	volume = {105},
	year = {2015},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20130360}}

@article{lacour2014,
	author = {LaCour, Michael J. and Green, Donald P.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Science (New York, N.Y.)},
	number = {6215},
	pages = {1366--1369},
	title = {When Contact Changes Minds: {{An}} Experiment on Transmission of Support for Gay Equality},
	volume = {346},
	year = {2014}}

@article{lane2001,
	author = {Lane, Robert E.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Political Psychology},
	number = {3},
	pages = {473--492},
	title = {Self-Reliance and Empathy: {{The}} Enemies of Poverty \textendash{} and of the Poor},
	volume = {22},
	year = {2001}}

@article{lawrence2014,
	abstract = {The prevalence of political innumeracy \textendash{} or ignorance of politically relevant numbers \textendash{} is well-documented. However, little is known about its consequences. We report on three original survey experiments in which respondents were randomly assigned to see correct information about the racial composition of the US population, median income and educational attainment, and the unemployment and poverty rates. Although estimates of these quantities were frequently far from the truth, providing correct information had little effect on attitudes toward relevant public policies},
	author = {Lawrence, Eric D and Sides, John},
	doi = {10.1177/2053168014545414},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/4SAAXF6G/Lawrence, Sides - The consequences of political innumeracy - 2014.pdf;/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/H5JUS5Z4/Lawrence, Sides - The consequences of political innumeracy - 2014(2).pdf},
	journal = {Research \& Politics},
	keywords = {Information effects},
	pages = {1--8},
	title = {The Consequences of Political Innumeracy},
	volume = {July-Septe},
	year = {2014},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168014545414}}

@article{luttig2013,
	author = {Luttig, Matthew},
	doi = {10.1093/poq/nft025},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/Q5UX3YIY/Luttig - The Structure of Inequality and Americans' Attitudes Toward Redistribution - 2013.pdf},
	issn = {0033-362X},
	journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
	keywords = {Income inequality,Support for redistribution},
	month = sep,
	number = {3},
	pages = {811--821},
	title = {The {{Structure}} of {{Inequality}} and {{Americans}}' {{Attitudes Toward Redistribution}}},
	urldate = {2013-10-07},
	volume = {77},
	year = {2013},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nft025}}

@article{luttmer2001,
	abstract = {Interpersonal preferences\textemdash preferences that depend on the characteristics of others\textemdash are typically hard to infer from observable individual behavior. As an alternative approach, this paper uses survey data to investigate interpersonal preferences. I show that self-reported attitudes toward welfare spending are determined not only by financial self-interest but also by interpersonal preferences. These interpersonal preferences are characterized by a negative exposure effect\textemdash{} individuals decrease their support for welfare as the welfare recipiency rate in their community rises\textemdash and racial group loyalty\textemdash individuals increase their support for welfare spending as the share of local recipients from their own racial group rises. These findings help to explain why levels of welfare benefits are relatively low in racially heterogeneous states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]\$\textbackslash backslash\$nCopyright of Journal of Political Economy is the property of University of Chicago Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)},
	author = {Luttmer, Erzo F. P.},
	doi = {10.1086/321019},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/9DY24E39/Luttmer - Group Loyalty and the Taste for Redistribution - 2001.pdf},
	issn = {0022-3808},
	journal = {Journal of Political Economy},
	keywords = {Deservingness,Fairness,Intergroup relations,Race,Support for redistribution,Welfare state},
	number = {3},
	pages = {500--528},
	title = {Group {{Loyalty}} and the {{Taste}} for {{Redistribution}}},
	volume = {109},
	year = {2001},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1086/321019}}

@book{mccall2013a,
	author = {McCall, Leslie},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
	title = {The Undeserving Rich},
	year = {2013}}

@article{meltzer1981,
	author = {Meltzer, Allan H and Richard, Scott F},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/YJ4CIZA5/Meltzer, Richard - A Rational Theory of the Size of Government - 1981.pdf},
	journal = {Journal of Political Economy},
	keywords = {Economic inequality,Income inequality,Support for redistribution,Welfare state},
	number = {5},
	pages = {914--927},
	title = {A {{Rational Theory}} of the {{Size}} of {{Government}}},
	volume = {89},
	year = {1981}}

@article{moniz2022,
	abstract = {How does policy-relevant information change citizens? policy attitudes? Though giving numerical information about social conditions has been found, at times, to change policy attitudes, why it works (or doesn?t) is poorly understood. I argue new or corrective information may not translate into policy-attitude change in part because it fails to instill a sense of need for change. Perceived problem seriousness, an affect-laden judgment about the acceptability of the status quo, may therefore be the proposed an important psychological mechanism through which information changes people?s minds. To perceive a problem, conditions must be worse than they ought be. Previous research, however, presents numerical information without a point of reference from which citizens can base their judgments. By contextualizing facts with reference points from the past (time) as well as other countries (space), four survey experiments show that numerical information about a range of social problems can change policy attitudes by first changing their perceived seriousness.},
	author = {Moniz, Philip},
	doi = {10.1177/1532673X221148674},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/PLZI4KFP/Moniz - 2022 - Facts in Context Problem Perceptions, Numerical I.pdf},
	issn = {1532-673X},
	journal = {American Politics Research},
	keywords = {Information effects,Numeracy},
	langid = {english},
	month = dec,
	pages = {1532673X221148674},
	publisher = {{SAGE Publications Inc}},
	shorttitle = {Facts in {{Context}}},
	title = {Facts in {{Context}}: {{Problem Perceptions}}, {{Numerical Information}}, and {{Policy Attitudes}}},
	urldate = {2023-01-24},
	year = {2022},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221148674}}

@article{munger2019,
	abstract = {My first publication as a grad student was a field experiment using Twitter ?bots? to socially sanction users engaged in racist harassment. The ascendant paradigm in quantitative social science emphasizes the need for research to be ?internally valid,? with a preference for randomized control trials like the one I conducted. That research project was well received, both by the political science discipline and the public, but I no longer believe that one-off field experiments are as valuable a tool for studying online behavior as I once did. The problem is that the knowledge they generate decays too rapidly (alternatively, that the realms in which it can be applied are too few) because the object of study changes too rapidly. I have been developing the concept of ?temporal validity? as form of ?external validity? that is particularly relevant to the study of social media. I suggest two avenues for producing more temporally valid research: (1) faster, more transparent publication (adapting the CS model of conference proceedings); (2) a ?hollowing out? of empirical research, replacing medium-scale experimentation like my own work with either purely descriptive work (ethnographic or large-scale) or with massive, collaborative, replicable experimentation.},
	author = {Munger, Kevin},
	doi = {10.1177/2056305119859294},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/MKXKFXCU/Munger - 2019 - The Limited Value of Non-Replicable Field Experime.pdf},
	issn = {2056-3051},
	journal = {Social Media + Society},
	langid = {english},
	month = apr,
	number = {3},
	pages = {2056305119859294},
	publisher = {{SAGE Publications Ltd}},
	title = {The {{Limited Value}} of {{Non-Replicable Field Experiments}} in {{Contexts With Low Temporal Validity}}},
	urldate = {2023-03-08},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2019},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119859294}}

@article{mutz1994a,
	author = {Mutz, Diana},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Journal of Politics},
	number = {3},
	pages = {689--714},
	title = {Contextualizing Personal Experience: {{The}} Role of Mass Media},
	volume = {56},
	year = {1994}}

@article{newman2014,
	abstract = {In exploring the impact of economic problems on public opinion, scholarship has nearly exclusively focused on personal and national economic experiences. At present, little to no research analyzes the impact of economic distress within one's social network on an individual's attitudes. Drawing upon network and contact theories, it is argued that financial hardship experienced vicariously through one's friends should influence an individual's views about the political economy, and ultimately, their economic policy preferences, such as support for redistribution. Utilizing national survey data, this article demonstrates that having economically distressed friends heightens perceived class-based bias in the political system\textemdash namely, that the rich have undue influence over politics. Further, moderated regression analysis reveals that this effect depends upon the prevalence of political discussion within one's friendship network. Finally, mediation analysis reveals that, by heightening perceived class-based bias, distress within one's friendship network indirectly increases support for government efforts to redress inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]},
	author = {Newman, Benjamin J.},
	doi = {10.1017/S0022381613001138},
	eprint = {10.1017/S0022381613001138},
	eprinttype = {jstor},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/BFW6E5G9/Newman - My poor friend Financial distress in one's social network, the perceived power of the rich, and support for redistribution -(2).pdf;/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/L3DAR8RS/Newman - My poor friend Financial distress in one's social network, the perceived power of the rich, and support for redistribution - 20.pdf},
	issn = {00223816},
	journal = {Journal of Politics},
	keywords = {Economic inequality,Inequality - attitudes,SES},
	month = oct,
	number = {1},
	pages = {126--138},
	title = {My Poor Friend: {{Financial}} Distress in One's Social Network, the Perceived Power of the Rich, and Support for Redistribution},
	volume = {76},
	year = {2014},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381613001138}}

@article{newman2022,
	abstract = {Does exposure to economic inequality undermine belief in the American dream? Scholarship has long argued that the availability of meritocratic ideologies like the American dream inoculates people against exposure to inequality by leading them to rationalize unequal outcomes by viewing wealth as due to hard work and poverty as due to indolence. The existence of inequality where the ``have-nots'' are working poor, however, could serve to undermine such a process because their employment status casts them as ``deserving poor'' and limits the applicability of agency-based explanations for poverty. Across two experiments embedded in national surveys, exposure to inequality alone did not cause significant reductions in belief in the American dream; however, exposure to inequality where the have-nots were working poor significantly reduced belief in the American dream. Moderation and mediation analyses indicate these effects were most pronounced among lower-income Americans and indirectly heightened support for government reduction of inequality.},
	author = {Newman, Benjamin J},
	doi = {10.1093/poq/nfac043},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/XVVUKLYN/Newman - 2022 - Economic Inequality, the Working Poor, and Belief .pdf;/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/BV742TSE/6858677.html},
	issn = {0033-362X},
	journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
	month = dec,
	pages = {nfac043},
	title = {Economic {{Inequality}}, the {{Working Poor}}, and {{Belief}} in the {{American Dream}}},
	urldate = {2022-12-09},
	year = {2022},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfac043}}

@techreport{newport2021,
	abstract = {While a majority of Americans favor increasing taxes on the rich, there is some evidence for caution.},
	author = {Newport, Frank},
	chapter = {Polling Matters},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/P7RKQQBS/public-opinion-increased-taxes-rich.html},
	institution = {{Gallup News}},
	langid = {english},
	month = jun,
	title = {U.{{S}}. {{Public Opinion}} and {{Increased Taxes}} on the {{Rich}}},
	urldate = {2022-06-02},
	year = {2021}}

@article{norton2011a,
	abstract = {Disagreements about the optimal level of wealth inequality underlie policy debates ranging from taxation to welfare. We attempt to insert the desires of ``regular'' Americans into these debates, by asking a nationally representative online panel to estimate the current distribution of wealth in the United States and to ``build a better America'' by constructing distributions with their ideal level of inequality. First, respondents dramatically underestimated the current level of wealth inequality. Second, respondents constructed ideal wealth distributions that were far more equitable than even their erroneously low estimates of the actual distribution. Most important from a policy perspective, we observed a surprising level of consensus: All demographic groups \textendash{} even those not usually associated with wealth redistribution such as Republicans and the wealthy \textendash{} desired a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo.},
	author = {Norton, Michael I. and Ariely, Dan},
	doi = {10.1177/1745691610393524},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/3GS6EC7P/Norton, Ariely - Building a better America-one wealth quintile at a time - 2011.pdf},
	issn = {17456916},
	journal = {Perspectives on Psychological Science},
	keywords = {Behavioral economics,Income inequality,Inequality - attitudes,Inequality - perceptions},
	number = {1},
	pages = {9--12},
	title = {Building a {{Better America}} - {{One Wealth Quintile}} at a {{Time}}},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2011},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393524}}

@article{nyhan2010a,
	author = {Nyhan, B. and Reifler, J.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Political Behavior},
	number = {2},
	pages = {303--330},
	title = {When Corrections Fail: {{The}} Persistence of Political Misperceptions},
	volume = {32},
	year = {2010}}

@article{nyhan2013,
	author = {Nyhan, Brendan and Reifler, Jason},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {New America Foundation},
	title = {Which Corrections Work?},
	year = {2013}}

@misc{orth2022,
	abstract = {Americans are more than twice as likely to believe that raising the minimum wage would help rather than hurtthe economy.},
	author = {Orth, Taylor},
	howpublished = {https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/12/01/most-americans-think-minimum-wage-is-too-low},
	langid = {american},
	month = dec,
	title = {Three-Quarters of {{Americans}} Think the Federal Minimum Wage Is Too Low},
	urldate = {2023-04-01},
	year = {2022}}

@article{osberg2006,
	abstract = {Are American attitudes toward economic inequality different from those in other countries? One tradition in sociology suggests American ``exceptionalism,'' while another argues for convergence across nations in social norms, such as attitudes toward inequality. This article uses International Social Survey Program (ISSP) microdata to compare attitudes in different countries toward what individuals in specific occupations ``do earn'' and what they ``should earn,'' and to distinguish value preferences for more egalitarian outcomes from other confounding attitudes and perceptions. The authors suggest a method for summarizing individual preferences for the leveling of earnings and use kernel density estimates to describe and compare the distribution of individual preferences over time and cross-nationally. They find that subjective estimates of inequality in pay diverge substantially from actual data, and that although Americans do not, on the average, have different preferences for aggregate (in)equality, there is evidence for: 1. Less awareness concerning the extent of inequality at the top of the income distribution in America 2. More polarization in attitudes among Americans 3. Similar preferences for ``leveling down'' at the top of the earnings distribution in the United States, but also 4. Less concern for reducing differentials at the bottom of the distribution},
	author = {Osberg, L. and Smeeding, T.},
	doi = {10.1177/000312240607100305},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/AZQNH8RZ/Osberg, Smeeding - Fair Inequality Attitudes toward Pay Differentials The United States in Comparative Perspective - 2006.pdf},
	issn = {0003-1224},
	journal = {American Sociological Review},
	month = jun,
	number = {3},
	pages = {450--473},
	title = {"{{Fair}}" {{Inequality}}? {{Attitudes}} toward {{Pay Differentials}}: {{The United States}} in {{Comparative Perspective}}},
	urldate = {2011-07-11},
	volume = {71},
	year = {2006},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100305}}

@article{overby2002,
	author = {Overby, L. and Barth, J.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Polity},
	number = {433-456},
	title = {Contact, Community Context, and Public Attitudes toward Gay Men and Lesbians.},
	year = {2002}}

@article{petersen2011,
	abstract = {Public attitudes towards welfare policy are often explained by political values and perceptions of deservingness of welfare recipients.This article addresses how the impact of values and perceptions varies depending on the contextual information that citizens have available when forming welfare opinions. It is argued that whenever citizens face deservingness-relevant cues in public debate or the media, a psychological `deservingness heuristic' is triggered prompting individuals spontaneously to think about welfare policy in terms of who deserves help.This is an automatic process, equally influential among the least and the most politically sophisticated. Moreover, when clear deservingness cues are present, the impact of values on opinions vanishes.These arguments are supported by data from two novel experimental studies embedded in separate nationwide opinion surveys.The findings revise conventional wisdom of how values and heuristics influence public opinion and have major implications for understanding dynamics in aggregate welfare opinion and attempts from political elites to manipulate public opinion.},
	author = {Petersen, Michael Bang and Slothuus, Rune and Stubager, Rune and Togeby, Lise},
	doi = {10.1111/j.1475-6765.2010.01923.x},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/DG84SF87/Petersen et al. - Deservingness versus values in public opinion on welfare The automaticity of the deservingness heuristic - 2011.pdf},
	issn = {03044130},
	journal = {European Journal of Political Research},
	keywords = {Deservingness,Fairness,Political psychology},
	month = jan,
	number = {1},
	pages = {24--52},
	title = {Deservingness versus Values in Public Opinion on Welfare: {{The}} Automaticity of the Deservingness Heuristic},
	urldate = {2012-07-17},
	volume = {50},
	year = {2011},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2010.01923.x}}

@article{petersen2012a,
	abstract = {Evidence suggests that our foraging ancestors engaged in the small-scale equivalent of social insurance as an essential tool of survival and evolved a sophisticated psychology of social exchange (involving the social emotions of compassion and anger) to regulate mutual assistance. Here, we hypothesize that political support for modern welfare policies are shaped by these evolved mental programs. In particular, the compassionate motivation to share with needy nonfamily could not have evolved without defenses against opportunists inclined to take without contributing. Cognitively, such parasitic strategies can be identified by the intentional avoidance of productive effort. When detected, this pattern should trigger anger and down-regulate support for assistance. We tested predictions derived from these hypotheses in four studies in two cultures, showing that subjects' perceptions of recipients' effort to find work drive welfare opinions; that such perceptions (and not related perceptions) regulate compassion and anger (and not related emotions); that the effects of perceptions of recipients' effort on opinions about welfare are mediated by anger and compassion, independently of political ideology; and that these emotions not only influence the content of welfare opinions but also how easily they are formed.},
	author = {Petersen, Michael Bang and Sznycer, Daniel and Cosmides, Leda and Tooby, John},
	doi = {10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00883.x},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/7ULAC878/Petersen et al. - Who Deserves Help Evolutionary Psychology, Social Emotions, and Public Opinion about Welfare - 2012.pdf},
	issn = {0162895X},
	journal = {Political Psychology},
	keywords = {Deservingness,Fairness,Income inequality,Political psychology,Support for redistribution,Welfare state},
	month = jun,
	number = {3},
	pages = {395--418},
	title = {Who {{Deserves Help}}? {{Evolutionary Psychology}}, {{Social Emotions}}, and {{Public Opinion}} about {{Welfare}}},
	urldate = {2012-05-30},
	volume = {33},
	year = {2012},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00883.x}}

@article{petersen2012c,
	author = {Petersen, Michael Bang and Sznycer, Daniel and Cosmides, Leda and Tooby, John},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Political Psychology},
	number = {395-418},
	title = {Who Deserves Help? {{Evolutionary}} Psychology, Social Emotions, and Public Opiniona about Welfare},
	volume = {33},
	year = {2012}}

@article{pettigrew1998,
	author = {Pettigrew, T. F.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Annual Review of Psychology},
	pages = {65--85},
	title = {Intergroup Contact Theory},
	volume = {49},
	year = {1998}}

@misc{peyton2020a,
	abstract = {The disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic led many social scientists toward online survey experimentation for empirical research. Generalizing from the experiments conducted during a period of persistent crisis may be challenging due to changes in who participates in online survey research and how the participants respond to treatments. We investigate the generalizability of COVID-era survey experiments with 33 replications of 12 pre-pandemic designs fielded across 13 surveys on American survey respondents obtained from Lucid between March and July of 2020. We find strong evidence that these experiments replicate in terms of sign and significance, but at somewhat reduced magnitudes that are possibly explained by increased inattentiveness. These findings mitigate concerns about the generalizability of online research during this period. The pandemic does not appear to have fundamentally changed how subjects respond to treatments, provided they pay attention to treatments and outcome questions. In this light, we offer some suggestions for renewed care in the design, analysis, and interpretation of experiments conducted during the pandemic.},
	author = {Peyton, Kyle and Huber, Gregory A. and Coppock, Alexander},
	doi = {10.31235/osf.io/s45yg},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/MZS4YZGT/Peyton et al. - 2020 - The Generalizability of Online Experiments Conduct.pdf},
	institution = {{SocArXiv}},
	keywords = {Methodology,Online samples},
	month = nov,
	title = {The {{Generalizability}} of {{Online Experiments Conducted During The COVID-19 Pandemic}}},
	urldate = {2021-03-11},
	year = {2020},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/s45yg}}

@book{piston2018,
	address = {{New York, NY}},
	author = {Piston, Spencer},
	isbn = {1-108-44712-0},
	keywords = {Attitudes,Income inequality,SES,Support for redistribution,The rich},
	publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
	title = {Class {{Attitudes}} in {{America}}: {{Sympathy}} for the {{Poor}}, {{Resentment}} of the {{Rich}}, and {{Political Implications}}},
	year = {2018}}

@book{pontusson2020,
	abstract = {Inequality and Politics is an online survey that was carried out in thirteen West European countries and the United States in 2019. The dataset includes representative samples of at least 2000 respondents per country. The survey probes citizens' perceptions of economic and political inequalities and their attitudes towards "inequality-correcting policies." This manuscript explains the theoretical motivations behind the survey, describes the dataset and presents some preliminary findings pertaining to five themes: perceptions of economic inequality, nor-mative evaluations of inequality, explanations that respondents give for inequalities, perceptions of political inequality and redistributive policy preferences. Our findings shed new light on the political effects of economic inequality in a comparative perspective.},
	author = {Pontusson, Jonas and Giger, Nathalie and Rosset, Jan and Lascombes, Davy-Kim},
	doi = {10.13140/RG.2.2.33389.74720},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/WEYFD5L2/Pontusson et al. - 2020 - Introducing the Inequality and Politics Survey Pr.pdf},
	keywords = {Inequality - perceptions,Support for redistribution},
	month = apr,
	shorttitle = {Introducing the {{Inequality}} and {{Politics Survey}}},
	title = {Introducing the {{Inequality}} and {{Politics Survey}}: {{Preliminary Findings}}},
	year = {2020},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33389.74720}}

@article{portman2013,
	author = {Portman, Rob},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {The Columbus Dispatch},
	month = oct,
	title = {Gay Couple Also Deserve a Chance to Get Married},
	year = {2013}}

@article{ragusa2015,
	abstract = {Motivated by research showing that policy preferences are driven by social-interests rather than strict self-interest, this article examines if stereotypes of "the rich" shape Americans' tax policy preferences. For this project, an original free-response survey was designed asking respondents to describe "the rich." Respondents offered 1,570 unique descriptions, ranging from "hard working" and "job producer" to "selfish" and "inheritance." In the analysis, these stereotypes were modeled in three ways: (a) as affective stereotypes, (b) as discrete categories, and (c) as deservingness stereotypes. There are three main findings. First, political ideology and affective stereotypes have large and statistically indistinguishable effects on tax policy preferences. Second, deservingness stereotypes--in particular, whether the rich exhibit dispositional and prosocial characteristics--have particularly large effects on preferences for taxing the wealthy. And third, both affective and deservingness stereotypes have an interactive effect with personal ideology. For self-described liberals, preferences for taxing the wealthy are largely a function of ideological considerations. For conservatives, however, tax policy preferences are determined by a mix of ideology and stereotypes. In sum, the findings suggest that stereotypes affect policy preferences even when the target belongs to an advantaged group and the policy domain is nonracial.},
	author = {Ragusa, Jordan Michael},
	doi = {10.1177/1532673X14539547},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/7AXXF2G2/Ragusa - Socioeconomic Stereotypes Explaining Variation in Preferences for Taxing the Rich - 2014.pdf},
	issn = {1532-673X},
	journal = {American Politics Research},
	keywords = {Deservingness,Economic inequality,Support for redistribution,The rich},
	number = {2},
	pages = {327--359},
	title = {Socioeconomic {{Stereotypes}}: {{Explaining Variation}} in {{Preferences}} for {{Taxing}} the {{Rich}}},
	urldate = {2016-06-02},
	volume = {43},
	year = {2015},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X14539547}}

@article{rodon2020,
	abstract = {How do people evaluate fairness of redistributive policies when redistribution is considered multidimensional? We estimate the effect of distributive policies on the top- and bottom-income groups, as well as the effects of general wealth, social mobility, and origin of wealth on people's perceived fairness of the policies. Findings reveal that policies that encourage upward social mobility and an increase in general wealth and reward effort and upward mobility are seen as fair. Yet, what is seen as fair or unfair differs substantially across party and income groups. Policies that promote an increase of the status of the wealthiest, and policies that do not change or deteriorate the status of the poorest, generate different fairness perceptions. But there is room for agreement, as policies that make the poorest wealthier, while keeping the status of the wealthiest, are seen as fair by both Democrats and Republicans and among high- and low-income individuals.},
	author = {Rodon, Toni and {Sanjaume-Calvet}, Marc},
	doi = {10.1086/706053},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/75T9CHI9/Rodon and Sanjaume-Calvet - 2019 - How Fair Is It An Experimental Study of Perceived.pdf;/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/XCWGMSCJ/RodonAppendix.pdf},
	issn = {0022-3816},
	journal = {The Journal of Politics},
	keywords = {Fairness,Support for redistribution},
	number = {1},
	pages = {384--391},
	shorttitle = {How {{Fair Is It}}?},
	title = {How {{Fair Is It}}? {{An Experimental Study}} of {{Perceived Fairness}} of {{Distributive Policies}}},
	volume = {82},
	year = {2020},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1086/706053}}

@electronic{roper2011,
	author = {{Roper}},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	month = jan,
	title = {{{CNN}} Opinion Research Corporation Poll},
	year = {2011}}

@article{sands2017,
	author = {Sands, Melissa},
	doi = {10.1073/pnas.1615010113},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/XAPHT266/Sands - Exposure to inequality affects support for redistribution - 2017.pdf},
	journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
	keywords = {Income inequality,Support for redistribution},
	number = {4},
	pages = {663--668},
	title = {Exposure to Inequality Affects Support for Redistribution},
	volume = {114},
	year = {2017},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1615010113}}

@article{sands2020,
	abstract = {Psychological research shows that social comparison of individuals with peers or others shapes attitude formation1,2. Opportunities for such comparisons have increased with global inequality3,4; everyday experiences can make economic disparities more salient through signals of social class5,6. Here we show that, among individuals with a lower socioeconomic status, such local exposure to inequality drives support for the redistribution of wealth. We designed a placebo-controlled field experiment conducted in South African neighbourhoods in which individuals with a low socioeconomic status encountered real-world reminders of inequality through the randomized presence of a high-status car. Pedestrians were asked to sign a petition to increase taxes on wealthy individuals to help with the redistribution of wealth. We found an increase of eleven percentage points in the probability of signing the petition in the presence of inequality, when taking into account the experimental placebo effect. The placebo effect suppresses the probability that an individual signs the petition in general, which is consistent with evidence that upward social comparison reduces political efficacy4. Measures of economic inequality were constructed at the neighbourhood level and connected to a survey of individuals with a low socioeconomic status. We found that local exposure to inequality was positively associated with support for a tax on wealthy individuals to address economic disparities. Inequality seems to affect preferences for the redistribution of wealth through local exposure. However, our results indicate that inequality may also suppress participation; the political implications of our findings at regional or country-wide scales therefore remain uncertain.},
	author = {Sands, Melissa and {de Kadt}, Daniel},
	copyright = {2020 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited},
	doi = {10.1038/s41586-020-2763-1},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/4BKYLYC7/Sands and de Kadt - 2020 - Local exposure to inequality raises support of peo.pdf;/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/VNLK5YRA/s41586-020-2763-1.html},
	issn = {1476-4687},
	journal = {Nature},
	keywords = {Economic inequality,Support for redistribution},
	langid = {english},
	month = sep,
	pages = {1--5},
	publisher = {{Nature Publishing Group}},
	title = {Local Exposure to Inequality Raises Support of People of Low Wealth for Taxing the Wealthy},
	urldate = {2020-09-24},
	year = {2020},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2763-1}}

@article{stellarjennifere.2012,
	author = {Stellar, Jennifer E., Vida M., Kraus, Michael W., Manzo and Keltner, Dacher},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Emotion (Washington, D.C.)},
	number = {3},
	pages = {449},
	title = {Class and Compassion: {{Socioeconomic}} Factors Predict Responses to Suffering},
	volume = {12},
	year = {2012}}

@article{trump2018a,
	abstract = {This article argues that public opinion regarding the legitimacy of income differences is influenced by actual income inequality. When income differences are perceived to be high, the public thinks of larger income inequality as legitimate. The phenomenon is explained by the system justification motivation and other psychological processes that favor existing social arrangements. Three experiments show that personal experiences of inequality as well as information regarding national-level income inequality can affect which income differences are thought of as legitimate. A fourth experiment shows that the system justification motivation is a cause of this effect. These results can provide an empirical basis for future studies to assume that the public reacts to inequality with adapted expectations, not increased demands for redistribution.},
	author = {Trump, Kris Stella},
	doi = {10.1017/S0007123416000326},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/5XX582NA/Trump - Income Inequality Influences Perceptions of Legitimate Income Differences - 2018.pdf},
	issn = {14692112},
	journal = {British Journal of Political Science},
	keywords = {Income inequality,Inequality - perceptions},
	number = {4},
	pages = {929--952},
	title = {Income {{Inequality Influences Perceptions}} of {{Legitimate Income Differences}}},
	volume = {48},
	year = {2018},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000326}}

@article{trump2020,
	abstract = {Economic inequality is seen as fair when people believe it to be the result of fair processes, or in other words, in accordance with normative rules about resource allocation. As a result, people may support substantial inequalities of outcome as fair. There is broad agreement, within and across societies, on the normative rules that govern resource allocation. However, when people use these rules to evaluate specific instances of inequality, their conclusions are systematically affected by available information, self-interest and group-interest, and system justification. This causes divided opinions regarding the fairness of specific inequalities. Recent evidence suggests that growing economic inequality does not directly impact perceptions of fairness, but may reduce perceptions of meritocracy, thereby indirectly reducing the legitimacy of inequality.},
	author = {Trump, Kris Stella},
	doi = {10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.12.001},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/KB9SYZZT/Trump - 2020 - When and why is economic inequality seen as fair.pdf},
	issn = {2352-1546},
	journal = {Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences},
	langid = {english},
	month = aug,
	pages = {46--51},
	title = {When and Why Is Economic Inequality Seen as Fair},
	urldate = {2019-12-31},
	volume = {34},
	year = {2020},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.12.001}}

@article{vandergaag2005,
	author = {Van Der Gaag, M. and Snijders, T. A.},
	date-added = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	date-modified = {2021-09-17 15:37:05 -0400},
	journal = {Social Networks},
	number = {1},
	pages = {1--29},
	title = {The {{Resource Generator}}: Social Capital Quantification with Concrete Items},
	volume = {27},
	year = {2005}}

@article{weisstanner2021,
	abstract = {An emerging consensus claims that `subjective' (mis)perceptions of income inequality better explain redistributive preferences than actual `objective' conditions. In this article, we critically re-assess this view. We compare perceived and actual income positions as predictors for preferences for redistribution. We argue that perceived income is partly endogenous to actual income and its effect on preferences conditional on ideology. Using an original survey experiment from Switzerland, we show that the predictive power of perceived income is lower compared to actual income. Perceived income is only associated with redistribution preferences among centre-right respondents, but not among left-wing respondents. Furthermore, providing respondents with corrective information about their true position in the income hierarchy has no effect on redistribution preferences. These findings go against the new consensus about the superior explanatory power of subjective perceptions of income inequality. We argue instead that absolute objective conditions should be at the centre of explaining redistributive preferences.},
	author = {Weisstanner, David and Armingeon, Klaus},
	doi = {10.1177/09589287211037912},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/4L874XRI/Weisstanner and Armingeon - 2021 - Redistributive preferences Why actual income is u.pdf},
	issn = {0958-9287},
	journal = {Journal of European Social Policy},
	keywords = {Inequality - perceptions,Information effects,Support for redistribution},
	langid = {english},
	month = dec,
	pages = {09589287211037912},
	publisher = {{SAGE Publications Ltd}},
	shorttitle = {Redistributive Preferences},
	title = {Redistributive Preferences: {{Why}} Actual Income Is Ultimately More Important than Perceived Income},
	urldate = {2022-01-13},
	year = {2021},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287211037912}}

@article{wu2021,
	abstract = {Does an individual?s effort to acquire employer-sponsored health insurance through employment affect whether they are deserving of health insurance? Much of the current literature that examines the deservingness of federally-funded health insurance focuses on an individual?s responsibility in becoming ill. However, logic from the welfare literature would suggest the willingness to work for one?s welfare, or reciprocity, is an important determinant of deservingness. The relevance of employment-seeking in Medicaid deservingness comes at a crucial time given recent attempts by state governments to implement work requirements as a part of Medicaid eligibility. Using a series of survey experiments, I compare the importance of responsibility versus reciprocity and find that responsibility, what one does to become ill, is the primary driver of judgments of deservingness. What one does to earn their Medicaid by working plays a negligible role in driving attitudes. These findings have implications for how we understand the determinants of support for Medicaid policy.},
	author = {Wu, Jennifer D.},
	doi = {10.1177/1532673X20961317},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/NQW5M8VZ/Wu - 2021 - Work Requirements and Perceived Deservingness of M.pdf},
	issn = {1532-673X},
	journal = {American Politics Research},
	langid = {english},
	month = jan,
	number = {1},
	pages = {30--45},
	publisher = {{SAGE Publications Inc}},
	title = {Work {{Requirements}} and {{Perceived Deservingness}} of {{Medicaid}}},
	urldate = {2023-03-08},
	volume = {49},
	year = {2021},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X20961317}}

@unpublished{zilinsky2014,
	address = {{Working Paper}},
	author = {Zilinsky, Jan},
	file = {/Users/ktrump/Zotero/storage/6WHDDTBT/Zilinsky - Learning about Income Inequality What is the Impact of Information on Perceptions of Fairness and Preferences for Redistribu.pdf},
	title = {Learning about {{Income Inequality}}: {{What}} Is the {{Impact}} of {{Information}} on {{Perceptions}} of {{Fairness}} and {{Preferences}} for {{Redistribution}}?},
	year = {2014}}
